HC not impressed by Vijayan’s plea for urgent hearing

The Kerala High Court is scheduled to hear Leader of the Opposition Pinarayi Vijayan’s appeal against an order directing criminal proceedings in the CMRL-Exalogic pay-off case on Monday, October 26, following intervention by the Supreme Court.

The hearing follows the Supreme Court’s October 21 decision setting aside an earlier High Court ruling that denied Vijayan, his daughter T. Veena and son-in-law P. A. Mohammed Riyas permission to challenge the registration of a first information report (FIR).

A Supreme Court Bench comprising Justices Joymalya Bagchi and V. Mohana also stayed further investigation for seven days, providing temporary protection while allowing the appellants to pursue their challenge before the High Court.

The judges clarified that the interim suspension applied only to investigation and did not invalidate the FIR already registered by Keralam’s Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau (VACB).
Significantly, the appeal will be heard by the same bench comprising Justices K. Natarajan and Johnson John which had dismissed applications seeking permission to appeal against the Single Bench ruling on October.

Vijayan’s counsels pressed for a hearing on Friday itself, which would have meant that the plea would be heard by another bench as the members of the previous bench were on leave. But the court rejected the demand and posted the hearing for Monday by the original bench.

The High Court’s Single Bench, presided over by Justice A. Badharudeen, ordered the registration of the FIR on October 9 after examining material forwarded by the Enforcement Directorate (ED) concerning suspected offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

The VACB registered the case on October 12, naming Vijayan, Veena, Riyas and others. The registration followed the court’s rejection of the state government’s decision to undertake a preliminary inquiry instead of immediately initiating criminal proceedings.

The appellants approached the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court had issued directions affecting their legal interests without providing them an opportunity to present their position.

Their counsel also questioned the procedure through which the original petition had been considered and challenged the refusal to entertain their appeals.

The Supreme Court accepted that the appellants should have an opportunity to contest the judicial direction requiring registration of the FIR. It consequently removed the procedural obstacle created by the Division Bench’s earlier decision.

Importantly, the Supreme Court refrained from expressing an opinion on whether the allegations justified criminal proceedings or whether the appellants deserved further interim protection.

Its order expressly left the question of appropriate interim relief to the High Court, which must examine the competing submissions in accordance with the applicable law.

The distinction is significant because the registration of an FIR establishes the formal commencement of a criminal investigation but does not constitute proof of the allegations against those named.

The ED had communicated information concerning suspected corruption offences to the state police under Section 66(2) of the Prevention of Money Laundering Act.

The state government initially opted for a preliminary examination through a Special Investigation Team. The Single Bench found that approach legally unsustainable in the circumstances and directed the vigilance authorities to register a case.

The dispute over that direction forms the immediate subject of the appeal, separate from the eventual assessment of evidence concerning the alleged financial transactions.

The ED is independently examining possible money-laundering offences connected with the transactions. Its proceedings are distinct from the corruption investigation undertaken by the VACB.